Seemingly in an attempt to make atheism more appealing to Christians, “new atheist,” Richard Dawkins argued: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” Outside of ancient Rome – where Christians were tortured and killed as “atheists” because they rejected the farcical mythical gods of their society – I confess to being stymied by how this could be viewed as a compelling argument. To me, this is tantamount to a single man telling his married friend that they are in the same boat as he is married as well, but simply has one less spouse than his friend. The two most specious aspects of this absurd analogy are:

• The law of non-contradiction informs us that people cannot simultaneously hold to competing explanations of reality. One may conclude that the evidence points to the existence of a god and lack certainty about that who they might be (i.e. like Einstein or those who advance the “intelligent design” argument). It is incoherent, however, to believe fully in various gods with different natures and explanations for their existence in any rational sense. This would be as irrational as claiming to be a deistic atheist.
• There is a huge difference between determining that something came into existence by pure happenstance and deciding which creator has the best explanatory power for the evidence we observe from our finely tuned and ordered universe. Imagine getting into a debate over the existence of the TV. There may be competing claims on who was the first inventor of the television, but from this we don’t conclude that lacking certainty about what intelligence guided the process that once can then conclude that the TV created itself.

This reveals a similar problem with the atheist using evolution as proof that we live in an uncreated (natural or material) world without first getting an answer to the origin question. It would be ridiculous, for example, to say that stores have advanced from selling small, bulky black and white console TVs to the large flat screen plasma model that this transition resulted from evolution. Without explanation for how life came into being, we inevitably reach fallacious conclusions about how we interpret what is imagined to be a transitional process. Shifting gears, this same philosophical implication comes into play as we look at the abortion issue as both ignore the relevance to determining the origins of life and consequential implications.

Several years back I had a discussion with a former co-worker about the subject of abortion. My position was that people have no right to harm or kill innocent pre-born children. To my surprise, we found ourselves in full agreement on this point. While the conclusion about the value afforded innocent young life is consistent with an ethic that is largely universally held; the surprising aspect was in the admission that life begins at conception. I soon discovered, however, that my cohort and I were miles apart because she tacked on the addendum, “but, I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”

Anyone who has engaged in debates recognises that whatever preceded the introduction of the word “but” means the speaker has nullified everything prior. This is not simply carving out an exception, but a complete reversal of the ethic we purportedly held in common. A fitting comparison to highlight this principle is the issue of free speech. To maintain you are an unequivocal supporter of free speech while going on to say that you also advocate punishing and censoring anyone who holds views or expresses opinions that anyone finds unwelcome or offensive, then they oppose free speech. The fate of a given right (life or speech) is handed over to the whims and sensibilities of others. This is a dangerous stance and one that is responsible for the usurpation of rights that ought to be extended to everyone based on granting all lives inherent worth. The right to abortion can only exist where the value of the child is denied.

Since the right to abort is the singular point of contrast between pro-lifers and defenders of abortion, I refuse to adopt the linguistic sleight of hand to grant their preferred label of “pro-choice.” In truth, I will prove that setting aside the singular question – should abortion be legal or illegal – pro-lifers are more committed to genuine choice than pro-aborts. Here are several examples:

• Informed consent. This is the foundational consideration that determines all others. Women going into an abortion clinic like Planned Parenthood are counselled based on a distortion of the facts and a minimizing of the health risks. Abortion is a lucrative business and the financial pay-off and power they wield is derived from the number of abortions performed. Understating the numerous health risks and withholding information on in utero development is a censoring of the truth, perversion of reality, and therefore a denial of genuine choice.
• Showing ultrasound images. Abortion proponents and providers stringently resist this practise because it humanizes the baby and exposes the lie that the unborn is a clump of cells. It is far more pernicious, however, since abortionists use ultrasounds to determine the age of the fetus (little one), but many don’t do ultrasound guided abortions even though this helps to minimizes the risk to the mother. Blind abortions are carried out despite the risk because taking the time to do so impedes the assembly line process that fast tracks the number of procedures carried out. Abortion clinics notoriously keep women from seeing their ultrasounds while pro-lifers have trucks that offer free ultrasounds of their child. This initiative alone is known to vastly reduce the number of women who CHOOSE abortion.
• Waiting periods. After receiving accurate information of the risks and the process, pro-lifers advocate for a 72-hour waiting period before going ahead with the procedure. This naturally ensures the woman has had the chance to fully consider her options based on a full understanding of the facts. Abortion clinics try to close the deal and will even offer cheaper rates if the woman commits at the height of their vulnerability.
• Maternity homes. Pro-lifers are the ones who establish maternity homes which give support to women who want to keep their child or put him/her up for adoption. Often, parents and boyfriends pressure women into abortions and will even threaten to kick them out of their home or leave if they do not see the abortion through. Women can live free of charge and receive support for their education, aid in finding work or accommodations, assistance with nutrition, help finding adoptive parents, advocacy and personal/baby needs through these volunteer driven homes. Abortion proponents put up roadblocks to these homes and have worked to impede fundraising efforts.
• The choice to engage in protest. The right to protest is recognised and celebrated as a basic right that is indicative of a free country. Standards for pro-life protests have placed added restrictions on pro-life groups – notably in Canada where uniquely bubble zones have been established outside abortion clinics. Many college and university campuses will not allow pro-life groups to meet and will disallow pro-life displays.
• Access to counselling. Abortion services are so committed to their agenda that they will deny the emotional harm of abortion. It is pro-life organizations that provide post-abortion counselling to women and men to deal with the impact of their decisions – or the choices made based on pressure placed upon them to abort.
• Parental consent. Schools (through teacher’s unions) indoctrinate children on the premise that casual consensual sex is “no biggie” through mandatory “comprehensive sex ed” programs. They downplay the risks of STDs – changed to the less ominous sounding STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections) term and ignore the emotional impact of premature sexual intimacy. Teachers and other pro-abortion allies then ensure that the young girl, ashamed of her decision, can hoover away the problem without involving parents. Parents that want the child aborted can do so once the teen is showing. It is only teens who are conflicted and where parents might support seeing the pregnancy through that lose their influence. This games the system to increase the likelihood that a teen will not consult their parents and allow pro-aborts to pressure in favour of the procedure.
• Promoting options to abortion. Countless women (i.e. from “Silent No More” – an organization of women who regret their abortions) have stated that clinic workers made no effort to inform them of alternatives or programs to support keeping the child or putting him/her up for adoption. Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPCs) pursue these alternatives and facilitate researching and support in pursuing these avenues. Abortion clinics treat CPCs as their enemies and have fought to have laws mandating that CPCs must have signage directing women to abortion clinics.
• Standing against pressure to mandate abortion services overseas. Leftist governments and Planned Parenthood have worked hand in bloody glove to impose abortion and birth control access in other countries. This has involved linking aid to mandatorily imposing these programs and services and P.P. working actively in implementing these initiatives. They have even worked with the Chinese government in their forced one-child policy which is the pinnacle of robbing women of the right to choose.
• Forced abortion funding. In Canada, abortions are treated as health care and even the funding of private abortuaries (2-tiered health care) receives taxpayer funding for abortions. Many argue that this is necessary to assure access to low income individuals, but it is a violation of choice and conscience rights to force those morally opposed to the slaughter of pre-born babies to pay for this. Those who deem this practise virtuous are free to give their own earnings and doctors could provide services pro-bono out of their commitment to their services. Mandated tax funding denies choice.

The primary reason given by abortion proponents for self-identifying as pro-choice rather than pro-abortion is that they are not insisting that women must have abortions. Given all the facts above, the implementation of abortion policy reveals this to be largely a distinction without a difference. I’m not arguing that the general population is aware of or has considered the above, but if they – like mushrooms – are kept in the dark and fed manure; then this means that reasonable people are unwitting participants in a push for abortion. This zeal is also promoted by the anthropogenic global warming crowd and true believers in overpopulation theory. Regardless, there is no questioning that at the heart of this partisan divide are those who value innocent lives and those who see some lives as disposable and lacking in worth. This conflict is not choice vs anti-choice, but competing views of basic moral duties.